why not doing things a bit systematically? like considering all legal moves, and then only progressively elimitating those not interesting, chosing a couple of candidate moves, until you find a convincing line? it's kind of obvious, but I suspect many people don't do it because it's boring.
of course this cannot be a solution, cause you still have to make choices, but forcing yourself to do that at least for the first move is very helpful I think!
Originally posted by Habeascorpmy mental board is 2d, greenpawn's is probably 3d. what I'd like to know though is: do the 3d guys move the mental pieces with their mental hand? I mean they always talk about the touching of real pieces being the big difference, but if the 'touch' isn't there in the visualized experience, I can't see how it could reinforce the memory imprint.
I do not know whether GP and WW would describe an imagined board as 3d/2d (depending on what you are imagining) or 0d?
Originally posted by wormwoodI'm inclined to think that the 2D/3D distinction has a lot to do with a person's individual learning experience, and how often they use a computer for other tasks.
my mental board is 2d, greenpawn's is probably 3d. what I'd like to know though is: do the 3d guys move the mental pieces with their mental hand? I mean they always talk about the touching of real pieces being the big difference, but if the 'touch' isn't there in the visualized experience, I can't see how it could reinforce the memory imprint.
I'm a 3D person (or have been in the past), but I think the advent of computer programs and online play has made kids "stronger-faster" at learning chess than in the past.
I also think this is part of a larger pattern in society. The young adults who work for me at Disney are far far better at computer/cell phone/ handheld device "problems", but they struggle with simple things like knots, queue management, or the simple influence of gravity on things.
I joke that they geniuses for electronics, but idiots with regard to physics.
Basically, I suspect that whether a person learns better with 2D or 3D tells us more about the person than it does about the learning method.
Originally posted by wormwoodThat's an interesting thought. As I am horrible at visual memory and imagination, maybe using the kinaesthetic sense in addition would help.
my mental board is 2d, greenpawn's is probably 3d. what I'd like to know though is: do the 3d guys move the mental pieces with their mental hand? I mean they always talk about the touching of real pieces being the big difference, but if the 'touch' isn't there in the visualized experience, I can't see how it could reinforce the memory imprint.
Of course it does all depend how you started.
No computers when I was a lad. So it was 3d all the way.
When playing on screen I do find myself looking away from the screen
when working out a combo.
I suppose what ever suits you - does you.
I'd have to add if computers were on the go when I was a lad I doubt
if I would have played chess as much as I did.
Some of the games they have on these things are totally addictive.
I recall living and breathing C & C for two years in the mid 90's hardly ever
pushing a pawn.
Assuming you mean 1700 ELO (and not some freak internet rating), the answer is "mainly you have to study tactics". But you also have to study a bit of strategy (say concepts like bad bishop versus good knight, control of the open file), opening principles and endings (basic pawn endings, Lucena, Philidor at the very least).
Originally posted by greenpawn34I used to play 3d chess but now I play 1.d3!🙂
Of course it does all depend how you started.
No computers when I was a lad. So it was 3d all the way.
When playing on screen I do find myself looking away from the screen
when working out a combo.
I suppose what ever suits you - does you.
I'd have to add if computers were on the go when I was a lad I doubt
if I would have played chess ...[text shortened]... I recall living and breathing C & C for two years in the mid 90's hardly ever
pushing a pawn.
BUY chessmaster (the single best tutoring tool there is) and watch your rating SKYROCKET. Ditch the books. Studies show that learning is amplified when using a computer vs. a book.
FIRE your tutor. Once again, a chess program will teach you infinitely more (and at a MUCH cheaper price) than some bored chess hack who has no skill WHATSOEVER at teaching.
Avoid games under 30 minutes per side. You wanna learn REAL chess or piece trading, clock slapping, no-brainer chess?
Play opponents STRONGER than you. Strive to LOSE. You think by benching 100 lbs you're gonna be the next powerlifting champ? You got to break down those muscles (in this case, your brain). Nothing is to be learned by beating up on chess novices and taking the EASY road.
Originally posted by teacher1Yeah, of course his rating will skyrocket as soon as he fires up Chessmaster. Only thing is, there's a good chance he'll be banned.
BUY chessmaster (the single best tutoring tool there is) and watch your rating SKYROCKET. Ditch the books. Studies show that learning is amplified when using a computer vs. a book.
FIRE your tutor. Once again, a chess program will teach you infinitely more (and at a MUCH cheaper price) than some bored chess hack who has no skill WHATSOEVER at teaching. ...[text shortened]... your brain). Nothing is to be learned by beating up on chess novices and taking the EASY road.
Originally posted by jman566I posted this as a reply to a similar question in a recent thread. It's still true. Note that this time I've included a link to an online Heisman essay which is the seed for his book, so it's a "value-added" repost. 🙂
I was wondering if anyone had any tips to getting past 1700. A while back when i was around 1300-1400 someone told me to watch out for skewers, forks, etc and i will get to 1600. Now that im around that I was wondering if anyone had any advice to getting above 1700s. Am i missing a fundamental technique or something?
Thanks a bunch everyone
I just finished reading Dan Heisman's "The Improving Chess Thinker" and he convinced me that the biggest problem in the games of players under 1800 (and sometimes over) is a flawed thinking process. Specifically, they fail to consistently ask, each and every move, "If I make this move, what are ALL of the checks, captures, and threats my opponent can make in reply, and can I safely meet them all?" Heisman calls the failure to do this "Hope Chess", because these players often end up making moves in highly analytical positions after little or no analysis of the move they actually make, using general principles of play to guide themselves instead.
Simple, right? But it takes time and hard thought. Internet correspondence chess sites like RHP are ideal for developing this habit, because you have time -- assuming you don't overload yourself with too many simultaneous games. Some other suggestions:
When evaluating candidates for your move, first look for all of the checks, captures, and threats your opponent has. ("If I don't move, what can my opponent do?" ) When possible, try to find replies that allow you to counter a threat with a bigger threat, or which otherwise allow you counterplay, instead of playing strictly defensively.
Then, look at all of your own checks, captures and threats. Don't spend a lot of time following a non-forcing line in evaluating moves. The probability that it will occur is minute. When you find a good move, look for a better one.
Finally, when you have "the move" be sure to see how your opponent can reply. Assume best play by your opponent. Look at all of the checks, captures, and threats which he can make after your move. Consider ALL recaptures he can make after you make a capturing move, not just the one you want or expect.
Don't use online databases when evaluating moves in a game. You won't learn how to think that way and will likely be misled. In an opening, consider what strategic goals you have and ask how candidate moves further those. Try to understand an opening from first principles.
You'll make a lot of mistakes in analyzing because your board vision and tactical vision haven't developed sufficiently. They will improve with practice.
Heisman's online essay (some of the same ideas as the book, but the book contains a good deal more):
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman29.pdf
P.S. Heisman went back to some of the students whose analysis (verbal sessions with Heisman) of positions is reproduced in the book (he's a professional chess coach and many were clients). Some of the students who had claimed that they no longer played "Hope Chess" still did, in fact. So it isn't as easy to FOLLOW this advice as might appear. Don't assume that it's kid stuff and that you already do it. Even someone at our level who WANTS to follow this advice may have a difficult time developing these habits fully and consistently.
Originally posted by greenpawn34it might be the case that if you want to improve your OTB play, its better to work out positions using a real board and pieces -- while if you want to improve your play on a site like RHP that uses screens, its better to work out positions using screens.
Ah... that is because you are a freak 😉
To me it makes sense.
You get to know someone better and can recognise them if you
meet them in the flesh.
Much better than what you would if you just looked at their picture.
I bet getting the bits out and doing some study the real and proven way
would improve your game tremendously.
It certainly would not do any harm.